FILE - In this June. 12, 2018, file photo, U.S. President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Sentosa Island, in Singapore. President Donald Trump had previously condemned the cruelty of North Korea’s government, but after his historic summit on Tuesday with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump seemed to play down the severity of human rights violations in North Korea. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)PHOTO:AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump: The North Korea Nuclear Threat is Over

By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Donald Trump declared on Twitter Wednesday that there was "no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," a bold and questionable claim following his summit with leader Kim Jong Un that produced few guarantees on how and when Pyongyang would disarm.

"Just landed - a long trip, but everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office," he tweeted. "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong Un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!"

Trump and Kim were returning to their respective strongholds following the talks — but to far different receptions.

In Pyongyang, North Korean state media heralded claims of a victorious meeting with the U.S. president; photos of him standing side-by-side with Trump on the world stage were splashed across newspapers. Trump, meanwhile, faced questions about whether he gave away too much in return for far too little when he bestowed a new legitimacy on Kim's rule and agreed, at Pyongyang's request, to end war games with Seoul that the allies had long portrayed as crucial to Asian safety.

There were worries, especially in Tokyo and Seoul, which have huge U.S. military presences, about Trump agreeing to halt U.S. military exercises with South Korea, which the North has long claimed were invasion preparations. That concession to Kim appeared to catch the Pentagon and officials in Seoul off guard, and some South Koreans were alarmed.

"The United States is our ally, so the joint military drills are still necessary to maintain our relationship with the U.S.," said Lee Jae Sung, from Incheon. "I think they will be continued for a while."

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived at Osan Air Base south of Seoul from Singapore early Wednesday evening. He met for nearly an hour with Gen. Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, at the air base before heading by motorcade to Seoul.

Pompeo will meet President Moon Jae-in on Thursday morning to discuss the summit. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono is also heading to Seoul and is due to meet with Pompeo and his South Korean counterpart. Pompeo, the former CIA director, then plans to fly to Beijing to update the Chinese government on the talks.

On the issue the world has been most fixated on — North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear arsenal meant to target the entire U.S. mainland — Trump and Kim signed a joint statement that contained a repeat of past vows to work toward a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. The details of how and when the North would denuclearize appear yet to be determined, as are the nature of the unspecified "protections" Trump is pledging to Kim and his government.

Despite the confusion and disappointment among some, the summit managed to, for a time at least, reset a relationship that has long been characterized by bloodshed and threats. In agreeing to the summit, Trump risked granting Kim his long-sought recognition on the world stage in hopes of ending the North's nuclear program.

"Before taking office people were assuming that we were going to War with North Korea," Trump tweeted Wednesday. "President (Barack) Obama said that North Korea was our biggest and most dangerous problem. No longer - sleep well tonight!"

Trump's claim that North Korea no longer poses a nuclear threat is questionable.

North Korea is believed to possess more than 50 nuclear warheads, with its atomic program spread across more than 100 sites constructed over decades to evade international inspections. Trump insisted that strong verification of denuclearization would be included in a final agreement, saying it was a detail his team would begin sorting out with the North Koreans next week.

Moon has championed engagement with the North, and the agreement's language on North Korea's nuclear program was similar to what the leaders of North and South Korea came up with at their own summit in April. Trump and Kim referred back to the so-called Panmunjom Declaration, which contained a weak commitment to denuclearization but no specifics on how to achieve it.

As Trump acknowledged that denuclearization would not be accomplished overnight, the North suggested Wednesday that Trump had moved away from his demand for complete denuclearization before U.S. sanctions on the long-isolated country are removed.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency said the two leaders "shared recognition to the effect that it is important to abide by the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace, stability and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." KCNA also reported that Trump had expressed his intention to lift sanctions "over a period of goodwill dialogue" between the two countries.

The Singapore agreement does not detail plans for North Korea to demolish a missile engine testing site, a concession Trump said he'd won, or Trump's promise to end military exercises in the South while negotiations between the U.S. and the North continue. Trump cast that decision as a cost-saving measure, but also called the exercises "inappropriate" while talks continue.

Trump declared he and Kim had developed "a very special bond," and Kim said the leaders had "decided to leave the past behind" and promised, "The world will see a major change."

The U.S. has stationed combat troops in South Korea since the end of the Korean War in the 1950s and has used them in a variety of drills. The next scheduled major exercise, involving tens of thousands of troops, normally is held in August.

The Pentagon said Tuesday it was consulting with the White House and others, but was silent on whether the August exercise would proceed. Defense Secretary James Mattis' chief spokeswoman, Dana W. White, told reporters he was "in full alignment" with Trump.

In Japan, the prospect of canceled U.S.-South Korean drills was met with concern.

"The U.S.-South Korea joint exercises and U.S. forces in South Korea play significant roles for the security in East Asia," Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera told reporters Wednesday. He said he planned to continue sharing the view with Washington and Seoul.

In South Korea, the liberal Kyunghyang Shinmun newspaper said Trump and Kim have started a "march of peace" to end nearly seven decades of hostility and pave the way for permanent peace and prosperity on the peninsula.

The conservative Chosun Ilbo, the country's biggest paper, was more critical, denouncing Trump for offering the end of military drills while failing to convince the North to commit to verifiably giving up its nukes for good. It called the summit "dumbfounding and nonsensical," and said it will allow North Korea to permanently maintain its nuclear weapons program.

Steven G, “Trump started it . . . .” Now if that doesn’t sound just like a comment you would hear in a nursery or on the first grade playground. Suck it up and move along. You are not helping yourself.

Steven G, you have gone from shoulda, coulda, woulda to bellyaching and whining and now to wishing and hoping. Do you know that it takes a minimum of 218 members of the House of Representatives to impeach the President? Do you know that it takes 67 Senators to convict the President? Steven, do you know there are currently 235 Republicans in the House? Steven, do you know there are currently 51 Republicans in the Senate? Do you know how many senate seats of each party are up for election in November? You need to read the following article: [][] https://qz.com/932814/heres-what-it-would-take-to-impeach-president-trump-and-when-it-might-happen/ [][]. Now what do you really think is the likelihood that all of this will come together to impeach and convict Trump? You need to get back in touch with reality or seek counseling.

Steven G, the election was about 19 months ago. The election is over. Trump won! We are past shoulda, coulda, woulda. Reread the last line in my earlier comment-- Stop whining and bellyaching and act like an adult until the next election. The next time you feel the need to whine and bellyache about the election on this board, read it again.

Steven G is a great fan of hyperbole. Instead of barely being elected, Trump was elected with 304 electoral votes compared to Hillary’s 232 electoral votes. Being elected to the office of president requires a minimum of 270 electoral votes. Steven G makes an argument about why Ted Cruz was not even nominated. He relies heavily on the word “if.” Is Steven G not yet old enough to realize how big the word “IF” happens to be? Now Steven G has lapsed into the far-left argument comparing Trump to Hitler. Steven might take the time to Google the phrase: “Obama’s plan to become king” and see what shows up. Some examples are shown below [][] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/04/29/obamas-plan-to-seize-control-of-our-economy-and-our-lives/#1a65096f2ee9 [][] https://canadafreepress.com/article/coming-your-way-from-the-un-obama-king-of-the-world [][] https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/obama-to-head-un-after-presidency-is-quite-possible/ [][] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html [][] https://www.redstate.com/diary/imperfectamerica/2015/03/27/conquering-us-barack-obama-now-seeks-become-king-world/ [][]. You do know Obama did not become King of the USA, or Supreme Leader, or Evil Dictator for Life don’t you? Chances are very very slim that Trump wants one of these positions or could achieve the position if he did. I believe the “Founding Fathers” did a pretty good job in preventing this from happening. This does show that as far-out as some of those on the “right” happen to be; those far-out left wingers are at least as loony (or even more so) as any right-wing nut case. Stop whining and bellyaching and act like an adult until the next election.

Ted Cruz may, or might not, have been better, but he would never have been elected. He was too booring. For a Republican to win in America, he has to excite the voters. There are too many cards stacked against a Republican candidate. The Trump victory was a combination of a Republican candidate that appealed to a slightly wider base and the Democrats picking the most unlikable candidate in history. If Ted Cruz had won the Republican nomination, we would have Hillary as president. Of all the great things Trump has accomplished, saving us from Hillary is number one.

In today’s America, Reagan wouldn’t be elected in a landslide either. If we ran Hitler against Lincoln today, the winner would get less than 55%. And while I think Reagan was one of the greats, he made no progress in North Korea.

All I know is that I never would have imagined I would see people so sour over something that should be a good thing. Of course we should still be a little leery of crazy Kim and whether or not he is going to do as promised, but its a step in the right direction.

A.B. Nowhere did I ignore or contradict what I said in previous comments. All you pointed out was your own inferences to what I actually said. It is called a straw man. The conditions in North Korea have improved from the late 1990's in terms of the number of people starving, not in terms of political oppression. Though Kim has allowed the black market to operate in a few pockets, this is specifically so as to bring in cash for his nuclear program. He has no over-arching reform programs analogous to Glasnost or Perestroika. That is how I can argue that there are no similarities between Gorbachev and Kim. Unlike some on Team Trump, I am willing to give credit to Trump when he does something commendable and to criticize him when he does not as I would do with any President.

Apparently I'm reading too carefully, Sam. You conveniently ignored what you said in your previous comments, even after I brought it to your attention. You also said yourself that conditions in N Korea are better now than they were under the previous leaders. So how do you know the same scenario is not currently playing out? How can you argue that there aren't similarities? Because Trump is involved and you don't like him? It's possible we could be saying 20 years from now Korea was reunified thanks to Trump and Kim. Are you clairvoyant?

A.B. You really need to learn how to read carefully. I said that Reagan recognized that Gorbachev was *different* than his predecessors. He saw a crack...an opportunity. Gorbachev implemented Perestroika, something unthinkable with previous Soviet dictators. Thanks to Reagan, Thatcher, and Kohl, NATO placed cruise missiles in Europe which eventually led Gorbachev to halt deployment of additional SS-20 missiles. These *tangible* and substantive changes were cause for hope. And even then, Reagan did not obsequiously ingratiate himself like Trump or lie as Trump has in his disgusting compliments of Kim. No....Reagan still held Gorbachev's feet to the fire as is illustrated in his Berlin wall speech.

A.B. Please tell us how Kim is in any way similar to Gorbachev. Please give us examples of how Kim has implemented the equivalent of Perestroika in North Korea. There is no question that Gorbachev was quite different than his predecessors and Reagan recognized that. Here is the difference. In his comments about Gorbachev, Reagan never lied. Trump has lied repeatedly in his compliments of Kim. It is disgusting.

No, Sam, I meant like when Reagan said "I think, frankly, (that) President Gorbachev and I discovered a sort of a bond, a friendship between us, that we thought could become such a bond between all the people," Reagan told journalists after urging Soviet lawmakers to hold steady on the course toward greater democracy and private enterprise. Maybe you should actually do some research, and you might learn how that speech you quoted was merely a bit of showmanship with no substance. I guess you have forgotten when Trump told Kim "My nuclear button is always on my desk, and it works." So you think that his own military suffering from malnutrition is not a threat to his regime? There is more to war than the use of nuclear weapons. But you don't think his military being too sick and malnourished to sustain any military action isn't a threat to his regime.
You are absolutely right in the fact that I can and will disagree with you, because your comments are merely your opinion with absolutely no credibility.

A.B. You mean like when Reagan said, "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr.Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"

A.B. Please read my comments with more care. What I said was that the internal problems and suffering of the people in North Korea were not a threat to the reign of the Kim regime. He perceives the threat to his power from other nations. Kim does not have nukes to protect his regime from the people of North Korea. The nukes are his leverage against other nations. You can disagree and take the point of view that Kim is worried about imminent collapse...but you can't suggest that my reasoning is the same as saying that North Korea is flourishing.

A.B. Where did I even suggest that North Korea was flourishing by any standard of measure? I don't disagree with anything that you have said in terms of their economy, political oppression, and the day-to-day suffering of the people. But they have managed to survive much worse than they are at this moment and there is no indication that collapse is imminent. I will ignore your offensive comment about Eberstadt. However, even a small amount of research on your part would indicate that his opinions on this topic are generally held in high esteem in the conservative foreign policy community.

Trump Quotes....On North Korea and Kim Jong-un: "His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor. They have a great fervor.".....“He is very talented. Anybody who takes over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it, and run it tough. I don’t say he was nice or say anything about it. He ran it, few people at that age — you could take one out of 10,000, could not do it.”....“I learned he’s a very talented man. I also learned he loves his country very much.”....“Really, he’s got a great personality. He’s a funny guy, he’s very smart . . .” ....On Xi Jinping, the boss of the Chinese Communist Party....“He’s a friend of mine. I have great respect for him. We’ve gotten to know each other very well. A great leader. He’s a very talented man. I think he’s a very good man. He loves China, I can tell you. He loves China. He wants to do what’s right for China.”...........This is stomach-turning. How would conservatives of yesteryear have responded had Hillary Clinton or Obama said such things about such evil dictators? Welcome to the realpolitik of Team Trump.

I will not disagree; Trump makes himself look like an idiot on social media. But a presidency hasn't been one single person in the last century. But lets talk about facts you like to bring up so much...the country has shown drastic in every single demographic in 500 days under the Trump administration than the entire 8 years Obama was in office. And if China is propping up their economy so much, and they are making so much money selling technology to Iran (paid for by Barrack Obama no less), then why are their people starving? Why did the N Korean soldier, who was shot while defecting across the DMV, have an intestinal tract infested with parasites? Because N Korea's economy is doing so well? Do you have a sexual infatuation with Nicholas Eberstadt?

Is it just me, or does it look like President Trump is more willing to give his time to our enemies, than our allies? Donald Trump, catering to the worlds dictators, is literally the Neville Chamberlain of our times. It is not wise, it is not in our best interests to be making deals with the world's worst dictators.

As to Trump’s genius at diplomacy….he manages to flatter and praise oppressive authoritarian dictators while simultaneously treating our long held allies as enemies….allies that actually share the values that we once held dear. All part of his 8-dimensional chess strategy, I am sure.

A.B. Your analysis of their supposed impending collapse ignores the fact that 1.) they sell technology to aspiring nuclear nations such as Iran. and 2.) China has been propping up their economy for decades and will continuing doing so because a failed North Korean state has enormous implications for them. Also, I never criticized Trump in the past for being too "hard-nosed". However, you are free to place your confidence in a Reality TV celebrity who changes his position on a daily, if not hourly basis and who regularly writes celebrating tweets about successes that have yet to occur. I would rather trust Eberstadt, Mattis, Bolton, etc. Their egos will not be influenced by the flattery of tin-pot dictators.

Thank you Sam. I offered you up a challenge, and you did not let me down. You didn't pay attention to a word I said. Of course Kim is not afraid of being overthrown by his own people. They are terrified of him and have no knowledge of any other way of life in the outside world. N Korea's collapse will come from completely running out of money and natural resources. They will be a failed state. Oh, and you can call yourself a "Reagan conservative" all you want. I can call myself a yellow butterfly, but that doesn't make it true. You have to understand your adversary. Taking a hardline stance doesn't work with a crazy person. Trump tried that initially. Remember the "rocketman" rhetoric? You liberals criticized that, too, saying Trump shouldn't be so hard-nosed. Now you're going the other way. Pick a stance and stick to it...other than "Trump is evil!" Thank God you are in no position of power because you know absolutely nothing about diplomacy.

Contrast Trump to Reagan. Can anyone imagine Reagan saying of Kim… “he is a great negotiator”, “he’s smart”, “he’s funny”, “he is a promising young man”, “he loves his people and is very popular back home”?.
When Reagan negotiated with the Soviets, he always reminded them about their evil oppression. He never pulled any punches. He never ingratiated himself to dictators. Reagan would never have called war-games in Europe provocative to the Soviets and too expensive. Reagan would never made bloviating statements like “you can all sleep well tonight” based upon nothing but one initial diplomatic meeting. Instead….he was always soberly cautious. Trust through verification. And that meant documented, measurable, confirmable, achievement of specific benchmarks.

A.B. First, I am a Reagan conservative, not an alt-left liberal, nor a Trumpian national populist. If you had read any of my previous comments, you would not have instantly implemented that knee-jerk ad hominem. Second, you need to distinguish between the Kim dynasty and North Korea as a nation. Kim only cares about maintaining his power and building a home for Korean ethno-nationalism. Conditions were much, much worse in North Korea in the late 1990's than they are now. No one thought that they could survive then, yet they did. It is extremely unlikely that Kim would ever lose power from internal upheaval of the North Korean people. What worries him is attempts to instigate regime change from outside North Korea by the US/South Korea partnership. Without nukes, he has no leverage against that threat. Please read the in-depth article by Eberstadt in Commentary.

Trump appears to be the first president to actually take this problem seriously. A couple decades late, but someone eventually had to do it. The lesson to be learned here is to not let this happen again. Third world countries, like Iran need to be stopped early in the process.

Trump has opened up the first diplomatic channel of any real consequence in 50 years. Remember the Berlin Wall and other historic moments. We are not giving away anything yet. Keeping his nukes is more dangerous than removing them from his ruling standpoint.

Sam, I am sure you have already heard it thoroughly explained, but, like all alt-left liberals, refuse to actually listen to it. But I will waste my time and energy typing it here for you to completely ignore yet again. Current economic sanctions imposed on North Korea have reduced it's way of life to nearly the stone-age. Famine is rampant among the North Korean people. The economy is virtually non-existent. Denuclearization, when verified by inspections, will ease the economic stranglehold currently griping North Korea. Basically, Kim Jong Un is trying to keep his country from collapsing. If you cannot understand that, you have no ability to understand rational thought.

"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Trump is on the way.
Yes sir, when there is a wrong to right
Mighty Trump will join the fight!
On the sea or on the land
he'll get the situation well in hand!

Ron R. The USA *will* fail if it gives Kim concessions with nothing of substance in return. The Kim dyansty has been successfully using this strategy on every president since Clinton. Every single point on the recently signed document exist in previously signed agreements and documents going back to the 1994 Agreed Framework.

A.B. I am waiting for anyone to explain why Kim would de-nuclearize when it is the only leverage for him to personally remain in power. He can only extract concessions as long as he has the nukes. Please read or listen to Nicholas Eberstadt, the closest thing we have to an expert on North Korea and on the Kim family. I recommend his article at Commentary titled "The Method in North Korea's Madness" and his interview with Bill Kristol on Kristol's YouTube channel, "Conversations with Bill Kristol".

A.B. Unlike James, I speak as a conservative but one who finds Trump unfit in mind and character. My criticisms are based on the now well-established facts of his behavior and his lack of any guiding principles. I had originally hoped that the more thoughtful, wiser and sober individuals that he had surrounded himself with would temper his chaotic and self-contradictory impulses. But that does not appear to be the case. Too bad he won't listen to Mattis and Bolton.

The price to build a Trump Hotel in Pyongyang North Korea will cost the U.S. much more than the war games Ron R... But to Trump, it's just another day of using the office of POTUS for personal gain, and to enrich his name. WE NEED THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE FIRST 30 MINUTES OF THAT PRIVATE MEETING!

What is naive is to believe anything that Trump says or to place any confidence in his ability to negotiate anything. Trump is even more of a narcissist than Obama as is evidenced by his ridiculous statements. He said that we will lift sanctions "over a period of goodwill dialogue." What a master stroke of foreign policy genius. All Kim has to do is talk nice and the sanctions will be lifted. The article is 100% correct to point out that this negotiation only strengthened Kim's legitimacy. We can only hope that Congressional Republicans step-in and prevent Trump from implementing any concessions. Kim will never de-nuclearize.

To say that there is "no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," is an utterly false and irresponsible claim. Kim will never de-nuclearize. It is his only leverage. He closed the nuclear test site because it collapsed and he has completed all of the testing necessary both in terms of the warheads and the missile delivery system. Trump...the 8 dimensional chess master... will only give concessions (no more joint war-games, lifting sanctions) and we will get nothing.